The European Parliament claims that the Soviet Union is responsible for the Second World War

the-european-parliament-claims-that-the-soviet-union-is-responsible-for-the-second-world-war

10-10-19 09:16:00,

JPEG - 48.8 kb

European Parliament resolution of 19 September 2019 on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe (2019/2819(RSP))

(Text put to the vote by Michal Šimečka, Frédérique Ries, Ramona Strugariu, Katalin Cseh, Ondřej Kovařík, Vlad-Marius Botoş, Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, Jan-Christoph Oetjen and Christophe Grudler on behalf of the Renew Group, including the British Libe-Dem and the Irish Alliance.)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the universal principles of human rights and the fundamental principles of the European Union as a community based on common values,

– having regard to the statement issued on 22 August 2019 by First Vice-President Timmermans and Commissioner Jourová ahead of the Europe-Wide Day of Remembrance for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes,

– having regard to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted on 10 December 1948,

– having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2005 on the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe on 8 May 1945 [1],

– having regard to Resolution 1481 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of 26 January 2006 on the need for international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian Communist regimes,

– having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law [2],

– having regard to the Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism adopted on 3 June 2008,

– having regard to its declaration on the proclamation of 23 August as European Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Stalinism and Nazism adopted on 23 September 2008 [3],

– having regard to its resolution of 2 April 2009 on European conscience and totalitarianism [4],

– having regard to the Commission report of 22 December 2010 on the memory of the crimes committed by totalitarian regimes in Europe (COM(2010)0783),

– having regard to the Council Conclusions of 9-10 June 2011 on the memory of the crimes committed by totalitarian regimes in Europe,

– having regard to the Warsaw Declaration of 23 August 2011 on the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Totalitarian Regimes,

 » Lees verder

Singapore parliament approves ‘anti-fake news’ law — will this curtail free speech? · Global Voices

singapore-parliament-approves-‘anti-fake-news’-law-—-will-this-curtail-free-speech?-·-global-voices

14-06-19 12:27:00,

Singapore parliament passed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act on May 8, 2019 amid concern that it contains provisions undermining free speech. Photo by Flickr user Teddy Sipaseuth (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Singapore’s parliament approved the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) on May 8, 2019.

Commonly known as the anti-fake news law, POFMA gives broad, unchecked powers to government ministers to determine what online information is “false” and demand that it be censored or corrected.

The Ministry of Law says the legislation will help stop the circulation of “deliberate online falsehoods” which it says are being used “to divide society, spread hate, and weaken democratic institutions.”

But media groups and human rights advocates see the law as another tool to suppress free speech in Singapore. The law will come into force in a national environment where free speech is already under threat, as seen in multiple recent defamation claims against independent media and commentators.

The proposal to make a law aimed at tackling false information was discussed during a parliamentary committee deliberation in 2018. POFMA was introduced in parliament on April 1, 2019. A total of 72 members of parliament voted in favor of the measure while nine opposed it.

Under the law, any government minister can compel website administrators, internet service providers, and even private chat groups to immediately correct or remove ‘fake news’ from their domains. But the law’s definition of what counts as fake or false is remarkably vague.

Article 2 states that “a statement may be found to be false if it is false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears.”

Worker’s Party Non-Constituency MP Leon Perera identified three other provisions of the law which could be used to curtail the right to freedom of expression:

Section 2 – defining what a Minister deems a misleading presentation of facts, not only false claims of fact, as correctable;

Section 4(f) defining harmful falsehoods as including those that diminish confidence in the government; and

Section 6,

 » Lees verder

Greta for Parliament | KenFM.de

greta-for-parliament-kenfm.de

22-04-19 10:00:00,

Politischer Suizid einer Bewegungs-Ikone.

Von Uli Gellermann.

Irgendwie ist sie doch unsere Greta, die 16-jährige Greta Thunberg, die nette Greta mit den lustigen Zöpfen, die mit dem von ihr initiierten Schülerstreik der Umweltbewegung neue Akzente verschaffte. Immer mehr junge Leute beteiligen sich inzwischen an den Fridays for Future, an jener Bewegung, die am 15.3.2019 eine Million Menschen in über 2.000 Städten, in 125 Ländern, auf allen Kontinenten vereinte. Der SPIEGEL sah sie heroisch: „Greta Thunberg erobert Rom“. Der Deutschlandfunk sieht sie als „Allheilsbotschafterin“. Die Bildzeitung schreibt wohlwollend über die „Die große Greta-Show in Berlin“. Eins ist sicher: Greta ist bewegend, die kann bewegen und bisher fand diese Bewegung unter freiem Himmel statt, auf Straßen und Plätzen. Greta war das sympathische Gesicht einer neuen außerparlamentarischen Opposition.

Nun rief Greta den Wählern in der Europäischen Union zu: „Sie sollen für Leute wie mich wählen, die von der Krise betroffen sein werden“. Diesen Wahlaufruf verkündete jene Klima-Ikone, die ihre Generation gerade in das politische Handeln geführt hatte. Sie ruft zur Wahl zu einem Parlament auf, das von Lobby-Organisationen geradezu umzingelt ist: Rund 25.000 Lobbyisten mit einem Jahresbudget von 1,5 Milliarden Euro nehmen in Brüssel Einfluss auf die EU-Institutionen. Unter ihnen jede Menge Energiekonzerne. Großkonzerne – die Hauptverursacher der Klima-Katastrophe – zahlen fast nirgends in der EU die gesetzlich vorgeschriebenen Steuern. Der gesetzliche Unternehmenssteuersatz in der EU beträgt durchschnittlich 23 Prozent, doch die Firmen zahlen im Schnitt nur 15 Prozent. Und Steuern sind das wesentliche Steuermittel zur Lenkung der Emissionen. Immerhin stammen 56,8 % der Treibhausgasemissionen in der EU aus der Energiegewinnung. Der Weg zum EU-Parlament ist der Weg in den Suizid einer außerparlamentarischen Bewegung. m

Wahrscheinlich ist es zu viel verlangt von einer 16-Jährigen, die immerhin mit Erfolg jede Menge Menschen weit über ihre Generation hinaus für ein wichtiges Menschheitsziel bewegt hat, einen kritischen Blick auf den Parlamentarismus zu erlangen. Aber was ist mit den erwachsenen Oppositionellen? Die LINKE will „Europa anders denken“ und geht mit einer Reihe respektabler Forderungen ins Wahlgefecht. Na, ist man versucht zu sagen: Dann denkt mal schön. Oder in der Abwandlung eines Opa-Spruchs: Der Mensch denkt und der Konzern lenkt. Gleich um die Ecke,

 » Lees verder

EU Parliament Signs Off On Disastrous Internet Law: What Happens Next?

eu-parliament-signs-off-on-disastrous-internet-law-what-happens-next

27-03-19 07:39:00,

Authored by Danny O’Brien via The Electronic Frontier Foundation,

In a stunning rejection of the will five million online petitioners, and over 100,000 protestors this weekend, the European Parliament has abandoned common-sense and the advice of academics, technologists, and UN human rights experts, and approved the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive in its entirety.

There’s now little that can stop these provisions from becoming the law of the land across Europe. It’s theoretically possible that the final text will fail to gain a majority of member states’ approval when the European Council meets later this month, but this would require at least one key country to change its mind. Toward that end, German and Polish activists are already re-doubling their efforts to shift their government’s key votes.

If that attempt fails, the results will be drawn-out, and chaotic. Unlike EU Regulations like the GDPR, which become law on passage by the central EU institutions, EU Directives have to be transposed: written into each member country’s national law. Countries have until 2021 to transpose the Copyright Directive, but EU rarely keeps its members to that deadline, so it could take even longer.

Unfortunately, it is likely that the first implementation of the Directive will come from the countries who have most enthusiastically supported its passage. France’s current batch of national politicians have consistently advocated for the worst parts of the Directive, and the Macron administration may seek to grab an early win for the country’s media establishment.

Countries whose polity were more divided will no doubt take longer. In Poland, politicians were besieged by angry voters wanting them to vote down the Directive, while simultaneously facing brazen denunciations from national and local newspaper owners warning that they would “not forget” any politician who voted against Article 11. The passing of the Directive will still leave that division between the Polish people and the media establishment, with politicians struggling to find a domestic solution that won’t damage their prospects with either group.

The rhetoric in Germany in the last few days was not much better. German politicians claimed with straight faces that the tech companies had paid this weekend’s protestors to march on the streets.

 » Lees verder

EU Parliament Triggered By Patriarchy; Urges “Gender Neutral” Language

eu-parliament-triggered-by-patriarchy-urges-gender-neutral-language

31-12-18 08:20:00,

Authored by Tim Black via Spiked-Online.com:

Over the summer, Sweden’s defence commission warned that ‘a larger European conflict could start with an attack on Sweden’. Politicians and military planners clearly agreed – in June, 22,000 Swedish volunteer soldiers were called up for the largest surprise exercise since 1975.

The protagonist of this European conflict wasn’t named as such, but it didn’t need to be. Because every politician and civil servant, every pundit and broadcaster, just knows that the protagonist is Russia. Because that is the function ‘Russia’ – alongside associated dread words such as ‘Vladimir Putin’ or ‘Russian oligarchs’ – now plays in the political imagination of Western elites. It is the catch-all, go-to explanation for their travails. The assumed military demiurge of global instability. The real, albeit dark and hidden, source of populist discontent.

Yet while Russia-mania is widespread among today’s political and cultural elites, it is not uniform.

For an older, right-wing section of the Western political and media class, otherwise known as the Cold War Re-Enactment Society, Russia looms large principally as a military, quasi-imperial threat. Jim Mattis, the former US marine and general, and now US defence secretary, said Russia was responsible for ‘the biggest attack [on the world order] since World War Two’. Whether this is true or not is beside the point. What matters is that Russia appears as a military aggressor. What matters is that Russia’s actions in Ukraine – which were arguably a defensive reaction to NATO and the EU’s expansion into Russia’s traditional ally – are grasped as an act of territorial aggrandisement. What matters is that Russia’s military operations in Syria – which, again, were arguably a pragmatic intervention to stabilise the West-stoked chaos – are rendered as an expression of imperial aggression. What matters is that Russian state involvement in the poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury – which, given its failure, proved Russian incompetence – is presented as ‘part of a pattern of Russian aggression against Europe and its near neighbours, from the western Balkans to the Middle East’, to quote Theresa May.

And it matters because, if Russia is dressed up as the West’s old Cold War adversary, just with a new McMafia logo,

 » Lees verder

European Parliament Votes to Give €13 Billion Subsidy to Arms Companies Via European Defence Fund – Global Research

european-parliament-votes-to-give-e13-billion-subsidy-to-arms-companies-via-european-defence-fund-8211-global-research

14-12-18 05:03:00,

Campaigners have condemned the decision of the European Parliament to support a €13 billion budget for the ‘European Defence Fund’ for 2021-2027.

The proposal was included in a report called ‘Establishing the European Defence Fund’ which was compiled by the Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE). This committee is formed by politicians from across the parliament.

The Commission proposed €13 billion for the fund for the period 2021-2027 (in current prices), of which €4.1 billion are to be allocated to research actions and €8.9 billion to development actions.

The concept of the fund was announced by President Juncker in 2016 and backed by the European Council later that year. Between 2017-2020, a total of €590 million will be channeled to the military industry through this fund in initial pilot projects. This spending will be totally eclipsed by the proposed increase.

The advisory group/ Group of Personalities that initially developed the policy was dominated by arms companies. This Group was made up of 16 members, 9 of which were from arms companies or private research groups. Six of the companies that have already benefited from pilot phase had members on the group.

Member States refused to exclude funding for the development of fully autonomous weapons in the 2019-2020 pilot phase of the Defence Fund, and the draft Regulation for 2021-2027 specifically mentions “disruptive technologies” as a focus, meaning weapons or technologies which “can radically change the concepts and conduct of” war, such as artificial intelligence.

Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade said:

“This sets a very negative precedent and will see billions of pounds more of public money being used to subsidise arms companies.

The European Union was envisaged as a peaceful project, it should be investing in jobs and research projects that promote sustainable industries and contribute to the prevention of conflicts.

Whatever your views on Brexit and the UK’s role in Europe, it should not be using public money to fund research for companies that profit from war.”

This represents a major precedent for the EU – which had its roots in plans to bring peace to Europe. It has not funded these kinds of projects in the past.

 » Lees verder